"Steven D. Majewski" <sdm7g at Virginia.EDU> writes:
> And I was arguing against Courageous' description of Lisp as
> difficult: despite that personal-fudge-factor cited above, there's
> NO WAY you can say that Lisp is an order of magnitude more difficult
> that other stuff -- Java, C++, Perl -- that are widely used, so the
> argument that Lisp doesn't get used because it's inherently difficult
> to learn doesn't hold water. ( And if it does seem difficult to some
> folks it probably, it's more likely a problem with how it's taught
> than the language itself. )
My belief is that one of the reasons people can find it hard to learn
Lisp is that many of the Lisp books expose you to multiple programming
paradigms and ways of thinking of code that might not be common (or at
least commonly used) in other languages.
The trick is knowing when you struggle with a concept and when you're
really struggling with the language.
--
// John Markus Bjørndalen